Marketplace   Menu Guide   Complete Pages      
butler eagle
Site last updated: Thursday, October 23, 2014 Bookmark our site!
Local PennsylvaniaNationalInternationalNews Extras  
Published: December 27, 2012 print this article Print save this article Save email this article Email ENLARGE TEXT increase font decrease font

Ban won’t end killings

The proposed gun bans wouldn’t affect me very much.While I own semi-automatic handguns, they are “single stack” types and hold 10 rounds or less.
Some people might ask why I’m concerned. Well, a swing-out cylinder revolver can be reloaded very quickly if a person owns a speed-loader, and a modern revolver also fires a bullet every time the trigger is pulled.
Those are the arguments being used to vilify the “assault weapons” that some people propose to ban.
I do not own a semi-automatic longarm (rifle or shotgun) and, to be honest, there only are three that I have an active interest in.
The first is an M1 carbine. My interest is primarily historical; it was used in World War II by our elite airborne units.
The second is an AR-7, a “survival rifle” that meets all the criteria of the assault-weapons argument.
The last is a Ruger 10/22. It is perhaps the most versatile and most modified firearm in the United States today. In its stock form, it looks like a typical sporting rifle, but a person can buy accessories and add-ons that would make it look truly fearsome and “assault-like,” like the AR-7.
I do own a lever-action rifle. It holds 10 rounds, but it also has a side-loading gate that allows it to be “topped off” at any time. That means that the ammunition supply is virtually unlimited as long as I continue to put in rounds, which takes less time than loading up individual magazines. Also, one can fire a lever-action very rapidly with just a little practice.
Having said all of this, I must say that I do not like the fear that is driving the debate on both sides.
Being pro-gun, I acknowledge my own bias, but I also know that if we ban some guns, it won’t end the violence. As I’ve already pointed out, there are other weapons that can do the same damage.
There are those who believe that arming schools is a bad idea. I do know that the idea of a gun-free zone has failed again and again because the shooters realize they will have a longer time to do damage before the police show up.
I favor arming the schools, not because I’m pro-gun but because I’m a father and don’t want my kids to be victims.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no “duty to protect” the people of this nation. If that is true, the only people who are authorized to protect our children is us.
If someone has a better way, I’m willing to listen.




Paul J. Hovanec
Penn Township
Back
 
Comments
Order Photos!
 
MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR HEADLINES
arrow No need for speed
arrow Can’t argue with that
arrow BMH staff excelled
arrow Stuck with gift card
 
MOST READ ARTICLES
arrow Crash proves fatal
arrow Grandmother pleads guilty to drug dealing
arrow State law nixes city parking lot for hotel
arrow POLICE REPORTS